Anjorni
Can You Hear Me?
join:2001-12-13
Van Nuys, CA
clubs: 
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Prop S
Anyone read up on this prop? Only posting it here since it's a Los Angeles City ordinance. Figured it would matter more to the peeps here than in the political rooms... but if it has to move, sorry!
Looks like they want to institute a 9% tax on all communications? included would be the likes of text messaging, instant messaging, and VoIP?
That would suck, but am I reading it wrong?
--
If it was easy, everyone would do it |
|
Maleficent
Premium
join:2002-02-11
The Dungeon
clubs:
1 edit | Don't know much about it. I found this on lavote.net. Looks like they want to reduce the tax down to 9% from 10%.
--
Have you hugged a spider today? |
|
Anjorni
Can You Hear Me?
join:2001-12-13
Van Nuys, CA
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Anjorni
That's exactly what I thought at first, but if you read through the Voter Info Pamphlet they send residents, the rebuttal to the argument in favor of prop s states
•"Prop S would raise -- not reduce -- taxes by restoring the 2003 tax hike and creating a new internet and wireless tax" (although I dont know what tax hike there was in 2003)
•"City Hall would tax you for using the internet, wireless networks, text messaging, instant messaging, VoIP and similar services."
That second bullet is what I was most concerned about.
I'd hate for that to happen, tax for wireless, text, and IM? That would absolutely suck.
Then again, IM is free, so taking a % of 0 wouldnt be much collected.
This is the provisions that are concerning me though:
Breakdown
--
If it was easy, everyone would do it |
|
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to Maleficent
said by Maleficent  :Don't know much about it. I found this on lavote.net. Looks like they want to reduce the tax down to 9% from 10%. Actually what happened was that the old phone tax was 10%, the one that paid for the mexican american war.
Well, that got repealed recently, and the city of Los Angeles had been bandwagoning that tax for their coffers for years. The LA city council met in a closed door session to try to get the phone companies to keep charging this tax for residents, and the phone companies told them to take a walk.
So this is a brand new phone tax of 9%, made to look like they are reducing the existing tax, which is completely misleading.
"Los Angeles voters will be asked in a special election Feb. 5., the day of California's presidential primary, to approve a 9% telephone utility users tax to replace a decades-old levy that, because of changes in Washington, became vulnerable to legal challenges.
The City Council tried to reauthorize the 10% levy last year, but a taxpayer swiftly filed a challenge, citing Proposition 218, the 1996 ballot initiative that requires a public vote on most new taxes.
Villaraigosa persuaded council members to seek a 9% tax so he would bill it as a tax cut".
»www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me···set=true |
|
shortckt
Watchen Das Blinken Lights
Premium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell
1 edit | reply to Anjorni
Don't forget that in LA there is also a flat 10% tax on all utilities (phone, gas, elec).
[edit] This tax would cost us more than the fed communication tax it proposes to replace since it would apply to all communications, not just phone.
Don't you just love how telemarketers get a break on the proposed tax?
--
Just valves and condensers! |
|
ex city employee
@aol.com
| reply to Anjorni
the courts have ruled the city illegally raised the telephone tax without a vote of the people. the city council is now trying to back door the increase by "cutting" the tax to 9%, but impposing it on cell phone, internet etc. the result is a huge gain in income to the city. vote no on "s" |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
1 edit | said by ex city employee :
the courts have ruled the city illegally raised the telephone tax without a vote of the people. the city council is now trying to back door the increase by "cutting" the tax to 9%, but impposing it on cell phone, internet etc. the result is a huge gain in income to the city. vote no on "s"
Exactly. This is a world class con-job. The current completely illegal 10% CITY utility tax is about to be thrown out by the courts because it was not approved by the voters as required by law. By sneaking this on the ballot before the ruling the city hopes to con the public into raising their taxes by 9% while calling it a tax cut.
Edit: It also expands the tax to tax internet access.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
|
|
CurtesyFlush
Bababooey, fafafooey, tatatoothy.
Premium
join:2002-08-23
Fontana, CA | Aren't politicians wonderful life forms? I'd rather have a child murderer over for dinner than a pol. |
|
LA RES
@aol.com
| reply to Anjorni
Prop S is a sham cloaked in what appears to be a tax reduction on the people of Los Angeles.
First things first....
1. A true tax reduction does not require voter approval or a special ballot measure, the city council is trying to fool the voters into actually approving a 9% tax.
2. if the city council wanted to they could vote to reduce the tax and save millions of dollars by not asking for a special measure for Feb 5th ballots, all they would need to do was reduce it.
3. And as the Ex-city employee states, the council has been illeagly imposing this tax at the higer rate dispite the appeal courts decesion stating such was against the law.. check out no on prop s |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | reply to Anjorni
Prop S
"S" for
scam  |
|
